Which Republican do you support in the 2016 election

[I Love Money]

Poll coming up. Vote for a max of 2 candidates, minimum of 1 (obviously). Note that I've excluded 1st debate candidates with the exception of Fiorina.

[HavingFun]

Donald Trump of course!

[Dipstik]

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HS.212380682031&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

[TMI]

I will not vote for my slave master.

#buildingroadspeacefully

[Dipstik]

I will not vote for my slave master.

She won't notice.

[Captain Torgue]

Anyone who doesn't support trump should be charged with treason.

[Atlanta]

Trump 2016!

[Red BD]

Joe Biden if he will change parties (but that would be REALLY STUPID)..,.
So if the Democratic Party nominates Ms Clinton, any running Republican.

[sister morphine]

I once heard an (American) commentator say on the radio that all American elections are "a contest between a jerk and a crook. The smart people vote for the crook". On the basis of that list of republicans, you should all be voting for Clinton! Lol ;)

[Umpa Loompa]

Get your American bs somewhere else please

[Brendan]

Looks like the Yanks are going to get the Donald as Republican leader and Hillary Clinton will romp home to victory in the election! Ha ha!

[BrisingrBoss]

all of them are trash... any dem candidate is better than the 16 rep candidates put together.

[abnugget]

Deez Nuts for Moderator 2015

[Dipstik]

Looks like the moderators are all part of the mainstream media conspiracy to keep the Trumpster down.

[legalious]

Looks like the moderators are all part of the mainstream media conspiracy to keep the Trumpster down.

This thread belongs in off-topic as it has nothing to do with CC. Sorry.

[Dipstik]

For the uninitiated, that was a joke.

[Brendan]

That list is terrible. The two front runners are another loser Bush and the Donald who's just running a PR campaign. The others would struggle to get close family members to vote for them. The Democrat alternative is another Clinton. Ugh.

Please explain to non Americans why you claim to have the best democracy in the world? India's is bigger, Britain's far older, and you've been a two party state for over 150 years.

[Ant venom]

That list is terrible. The two front runners are another loser Bush and the Donald who's just running a PR campaign. The others would struggle to get close family members to vote for them. The Democrat alternative is another Clinton. Ugh.

Please explain to non Americans why you claim to have the best democracy in the world? India's is bigger, Britain's far older, and you've been a two party state for over 150 years.

Not true because of third parties. The USA democracy is beter than Britain's democracy because our taxes don't go to the queen in order to help expand her palaces and expand her body size.

[Dipstik]

Nothing Brendan says is worth actually discussing.

[Ant venom]

Nothing Brendan says is worth actually discussing.

Well after observation of his post, I believe so.

[Evan1000]

I'm not in any way paying attention to the debate, politics are stupid, but I don't think a businessman would make a very great president..

*waits for the rush of ppl to tell me how I'm wrong and how the candidates aren't just figureheads telling the public what they want to here so their party can have more power*

[Ant venom]

I'm not in any way paying attention to the debate, politics are stupid, but I don't think a businessman would make a very great president..

*waits for the rush of ppl to tell me how I'm wrong and how the candidates aren't just figureheads telling the public what they want to here so their party can have more power*
And I'm guessing the 'Queen' of the United Kingdom isn't a just a figurehead.

[Dipstik]

This is a good illustration of why you don't give away personal information on internet forums... For all of the reasons I could think of to brush off your opinion, the one I keep coming back to (and in fact can't get out of my head) is that you're not even old enough to drive.

[Evan1000]

The queen of England was always a figurehead.

I'm sorry, I'll reword.

All the presidential candidates have the potential to not be figureheads and to actually be a decent president, but the party system kills that for them.

[Evan1000]

Well, I'm old enough to get my junior license, so technically yes. But I know that wasn't your point so I'll leave it there

[Ant venom]

The queen of England was always a figurehead.

I'm sorry, I'll reword.

All the presidential candidates have the potential to not be figureheads and to actually be a decent president, but the party system kills that for them.

Evan1000 you need to learn the 7-letter word that all we humans call "sarcasm" which was what my previous post had meaning we don't need a genius to figure some things out so keeping it to yourself solves the problems, more than when you do imply things.

[Evan1000]

Oh. Sarcasm is hard to read over an internet forum. Lol

[Evan1000]

Anyways, I'm voting for Obama when he runs for his third term!

[Ant venom]

Anyways, I'm voting for Obama when he runs for his third term!

Obama for president for his "third term" is like the nightmare I had last week come true, 1 term was enough, 2 was outrageous but 3 like I said above is a nightmare come true, not that he would be allowed to be president for more than 2 terms, thank God for that btw.

[Ant venom]

Oh. Sarcasm is hard to read over an internet forum. Lol

Apparently it is for you, for us not really (Btw I could read the sarcasm in your post).

[Vile Lynn]

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/obama-facepalm-e1351628604711-600x330.jpeg
this convo

[Evan1000]

not that he would be allowed to be president for more than 2 terms, thank God for that btw.

I disagree. If a president did a good job and would like to run for a third term, and the American people want him, I feel that he should have the right to run for a third term. Look at the one (and only) perfect example FDR, who was an amazing president and ran and was elected for 4 terms.

Of course I understand that all these restrictions are in place so presidents don't abuse there power, but two things wrong with this. If a president abuses his power or is just a bad president in general, people won't vote for him in the first place, and because of all these restrictions it keeps good presidents from leading efficiently

[Ant venom]

I disagree. If a president did a good job and would like to run for a third term, and the American people want him, I feel that he should have the right to run for a third term. Look at the one (and only) perfect example FDR, who was an amazing president and ran and was elected for 4 terms.

Of course I understand that all these restrictions are in place so presidents don't abuse there power, but two things wrong with this. If a president abuses his power or is just a bad president in general, people won't vote for him in the first place, and because of all these restrictions it keeps good presidents from leading efficiently
A president really doesn't have much more power other than veto something without being controlled by the Congress especially anything he wants like new laws or something. A president is much like the 'Monarch' of the United Kingdom, nothing more than a figurehead except the Monarchs are more of a
long term thing whereas the President's time as a President is limited. Honestly Barack Obama is one of my least favorite presidents much like his predecessor.

[Evan1000]

Apparently it is for you, for us not really (Btw I could read the sarcasm in your post).

I may have made it obvious with a bizarre idea and topped it off with an exclamation point. But reading back on your post I didn't realize you put "just" a figurehead, so yeah now I see the sarcasm. Oops

[Evan1000]

A president really doesn't have much more power other than veto something without being controlled by the Congress especially anything he wants like new laws or something.

Exactly. That's why I don't like politics.

I also don't like the fact that politics parties run everything and all they care about is what's best for their party, not the country.

When I heard that there was a problem with there being more republicans than democrats in the white house and nothing was getting done because they couldn't agree on anything or whatever it was, I laughed.

Dippy this is why I use my age. It's only a number and has nothing to do with anything, and it for sure can hurt my argument because people like max power (and maybe you, I could never tell) take it as I don't know anything, but it can also make my argument stand out because a 17 year old is laughing over a bunch of 30 year old's running our country arguing over who gets to use the white house bathroom.

Also, one more thing.. aren't political discussions of any kind banned from the forum?

[Dipstik]

I disagree.

With what?



Dippy this is why I use my age. It's only a number and has nothing to do with anything, and it for sure can hurt my argument because people like max power (and maybe you, I could never tell) take it as I don't know anything, but it can also make my argument stand out because a 17 year old is laughing over a bunch of 30 year old's running our country arguing over who gets to use the white house bathroom.


No your arguments are laughable on their face, but every time I start to respond, I think "I'm arguing with a dumb kid" and move along.

[Evan1000]

With what?

That a president shouldn't be allowed to run for more than two terms

[Dipstik]

That a president shouldn't be allowed to run for more than two terms

Good for you. Move to Cuba. No one has said the president "shouldn't" be allowed to run for three terms. It's a legal fact, not a debate.

[TMI]

Not true because of third parties. The USA democracy is beter than Britain's democracy because our taxes don't go to the queen in order to help expand her palaces and expand her body size.

I'm not sure how a measure of democracy is by what your taxes go to.
Democracy is like 2 lions and a gazelle voting on what's for dinner. And If the gazelle doesn't like it, he should just move out of the Serengeti :rolleyes:

Anyways,
2 scenarios:
1. Someone robs you at gunpoint to take the product of your labour, and he'll use that to buy guns and bullets to murder other human beings on this planet.
2. Someone robs you at gunpoint to take the product of your labour, and he'll use that to buy a bigger home and buy more donuts and chocolate.

I'd rather be robbed by the 2nd scenario. But that's just my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather NOT be robbed AT ALL.



A president really doesn't have much more power other than veto something without being controlled by the Congress especially anything he wants like new laws or something. A president is much like the 'Monarch' of the United Kingdom, nothing more than a figurehead except the Monarchs are more of a
long term thing wheras the President's time as a President is limited. Honestly Barack Obama is one of my least favorite presidents much like his predecessor.

Quoted for truth.

[Dipstik]

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather NOT be robbed AT ALL.


I agree. We should get together with a bunch of similarly situated people and form some sort of organization where we could provide for our mutual defense from getting robbed.

[TMI]

I agree. We should get together with a bunch of similarly situated people and form some sort of organization where we could provide for our mutual defense from getting robbed.

Quoted for truth.

Edit: However, what should one do if the robber prevents you from forming this DEFENSIVE organization and prevents you from OWNING the weaponry needed to fend of the robber? Another problem is that most of the robber's victims around you will defend this robber. In fact, they may even HELP the robber to either kill you, or throw you into a cage. :(

[Dipstik]

I'm only saying that your pessimism with "democracy" is really only a complaint against the way it's been used. As they say, ours is the worst political system out there except for everything else that's ever been tried. The people who want to abandon the Republic love watching people complain about "the system." Wait until you see what replaces it.

[TMI]

Perhaps you're right about the fear of what replaces it.

Perhaps humanity isn't ready to organize without the threat of violence.

I am optimistic that we should be able to put tar on the surface of this planet without pointing guns at each other.


Edit: Without slaves, who will pick the cotton? I would dare to suggest, that if there is a product or service, that can only exist by the threat of force or coercion, then maybe that product or service shouldn't exist.

[Dipstik]

Humanity organizes FOR the threat of violence. As long as you presume the fact that there are bad people in the world, you have three options: 1) Never interact with another human being, 2) Might makes right, and 3) A system of agreed upon rules with enforcement handled by some form of government. The first option is impossible, and it's been almost universally accepted that the third option is preferable to the second. We're really only talking about who gets to decide on the rules and control the enforcement mechanisms.

[TMI]

If feel like there must be more than 3 options. At least, an option that doesn't violate the Non-Aggression Principle, that it is always unethical to threaten violence/force or coercion against peaceful ppl. I'm sure there must be. This option would go against your option 1 (never interact with another human). I know that I personally interact with humans around me, without threatening them with violence.

The violation of the NAP might be my own bias of my comfortableness at such a notion. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity.

btw, I certainly do understand that statements that contain ALWAYS or NEVER, should be looked at with much skepticism.

Maybe there are products or services that justly exist, that can only be brought about by threatening violence/force, 2 of which may be justice, and giving money to the poor.

But idk, I'm still uncomfortable with it, and I'm sure there must be a more peaceful way.

[Dipstik]

As long as there's one person in the world willing to use force to take advantage of another person, there has to be a mechanism for using violence to prevent that force. And to cut you off, no... passive resistance strategies will never work. Ghandi and MLK Jr. only achieved the success they did because they weren't actually trying to STOP violence, they were trying to call attention to a situation so that others would step in and stop it for them. Eventually you always need laws and people with guns to enforce the laws when they're broken.

[Brendan]

Not true because of third parties. The USA democracy is beter than Britain's democracy because our taxes don't go to the queen in order to help expand her palaces and expand her body size.

You do realise that the Queen doesn't actually own her palaces and the vast majority of her jewels etc? They are state owned, but she gets to live in them. The Royal Family are funded through the civil list, the amount of which is determined by parliament. And it's a fraction of what they bring in to this country in terms of tourism, prestige etc.

Maintaining the Queen probably costs

[Brendan]

Nothing Brendan says is worth actually discussing.

This coming from a middle aged man with a My Little Pony fetish! Trot on pony troll!

[Dipstik]

This coming from a middle aged man with a My Little Pony fetish! Trot on pony troll!

Ironic Troll is ironic.

[Ant venom]

That a president shouldn't be allowed to run for more than two terms

And that's why 17 year olds aren't allowed to vote, hold a position in the government or voice opinions about politics or even talk about politics. But wait, you're a 17 year old.

[Evan1000]

Please, tell me two things.

How my age is relevant to my opinion.

Why a president serving more than two terms is so wrong that you would make such a comment.

[Max Power]

I disagree. If a president did a good job and would like to run for a third term, and the American people want him, I feel that he should have the right to run for a third term. Look at the one (and only) perfect example FDR, who was an amazing president and ran and was elected for 4 terms.



No, a million times no. It's the Ted Kennedy effect, where nobody in his party dared contest him and since people vote party, Democrats would choose him over anything Republican. Look at the results. The two party system is our fault, not the politicians, because that is the way most people vote, and term limits should extend well beyond the oval office. There should be no such thing as a career politician.



Dippy this is why I use my age. It's only a number and has nothing to do with anything, and it for sure can hurt my argument because people like max power (and maybe you, I could never tell) take it as I don't know anything, but it can also make my argument stand out because a 17 year old is laughing over a bunch of 30 year old's running our country arguing over who gets to use the white house bathroom.


You use your age whenever it suits you, and complain about it when people use it against you. You can't have it both ways, and Dippy and I sure as hell aren't the ones that brought it up in the first place. "Ha ha I am just a kid give me gold. Of wait, here is my experienced world view, quit using my age against me" Just own it and move on. Nobody likes hypocrisy.



No your arguments are laughable on their face, but every time I start to respond, I think "I'm arguing with a dumb kid" and move along.

Man, this times 1000%

[Dipstik]

Your age is relevant because you live at home, you've never had a full time job, you've never paid taxes, you've never had kids, you've never purchased health insurance... need I go on?

[Vile Lynn]

I thought this was a public poll.

I voted for Cruz & Trump.

[Dipstik]

Click the little blue numbers to the right of the results.

[Vile Lynn]

Thanks!
.

[Ant venom]

Your age is relevant because you live at home, you've never had a full time job, you've never paid taxes, you've never had kids, you've never purchased health insurance... need I go on?

Evan1000 is the hypocrite of the CC Forum.

[justjon]

Evan1000 is the hypocrite of the CC Forum.

QFT.

And I bet you haven't even heard about his free gold scam.

[Ant venom]

QFT.

And I bet you haven't even heard about his free gold scam.

I guess adding ignorant would be legit for the things he is, like how he's ignorant but he calls others ignorant (hypocritical much).

[Vile Lynn]

Don't worry, Evan...
All guys are "young and dumb" and not respected until 40-something.

You've gotta long, long way to go.

[Ant venom]

Don't worry, Evan...
All guys are "young and dumb" and not respected until 40-something.

You've gotta long, long way to go.
Nah, 35 is enough, I mean we gotta respect the president right? I mean you can be a president at 35 except the downside is, you're just a figurehead and under the threat of assasination. So being a president iss pretty much a Lose-Lose not the opposite.

[Brendan]

And that's why 17 year olds aren't allowed to vote, hold a position in the government or voice opinions about politics or even talk about politics. But wait, you're a 17 year old.

Over here you can get a job and pay taxes, join the army and get married at 16. I think that qualifies someone to vote which they did in the Scottish referendum on independence.

Evan may not know everything but at least he's enthusiastic, not a boring and bitter middle aged man obsessed with pictures of naked ponies.

[Dipstik]

Over here you can get a job and pay taxes, join the army and get married at 16. I think that qualifies someone to vote which they did in the Scottish referendum on independence.

Evan may not know everything but at least he's enthusiastic, not a boring and bitter middle aged man obsessed with pictures of naked ponies.

It's like I have a new Jess...

[Ant venom]

Over here you can get a job and pay taxes, join the army and get married at 16. I think that qualifies someone to vote which they did in the Scottish referendum on independence.

Evan may not know everything but at least he's enthusiastic, not a boring and bitter middle aged man obsessed with pictures of naked ponies.

At least Dippy isn't obsessed with the Simpsons or pictures of cats sleeping together and making out like you and your best (boy)friend Evan. And where will joining the Army get you, your grave or your wheelchair and crutches? And also where does getting married at 16 get you, I mean you aren't mature enough really so my point is if you're not mature enough to actually do something useful in your life without getting criticized by everyone or it benefits yourself, don't do it.

[Vile Lynn]

It's like I have a new Jess...

You have a very odd fan club indeed.

[I Love Money]

Obama for president for his "third term" is like the nightmare I had last week come true, 1 term was enough, 2 was outrageous but 3 like I said above is a nightmare come true, not that he would be allowed to be president for more than 2 terms, thank God for that btw.

Hillary Clinton wins the election. Someone else becomes VP. Obama becomes Speaker of the House. Clinton resigns, the VP becomes president and then resigns, next in line is Obama.

[Dipstik]

I think he could even run as VP, to be honest. I'd be awfully nervous to be the guy running as president if he was that obvious about it, though :)

[I Love Money]

Obama isn't allowed to run as VP. If someone isn't eligible to be president, they can't run as VP.

[Dipstik]

The 22nd amendment isn't exactly something I've ever focused on, but it only says "may not be elected president." Nothing about the VP. I also checked the 25th to be sure they didn't modify it somehow when they set up the procedure for the VP to become president if the president dies, and there's no mention there either. Unless there's been some goofy court case that has nothing to do with the text (shocking!), I think it'd be permitted.

[I Love Money]

Actually, I just looked it up.

The VP qualifications are that the VP must meet the same qualifications as the presidential candidate (as stated in the 12th Amendment, qualifications are stated in Article 2 of the Constitution).

However, there is nothing that states that a two-term president can't run as VP since no one has tried it before. Some people think that the 22nd and 12th Amendments prevent a two-term president from being VP while others think that the 12th Amendment is qualifications for service and the 22nd for election which would allows a two term president to serve as VP.

[Dipstik]

Actually, I just looked it up.

The VP qualifications are that the VP must meet the same qualifications as the presidential candidate (as stated in the 12th Amendment, qualifications are stated in Article 2 of the Constitution).

However, there is nothing that states that a two-term president can't run as VP since no one has tried it before. Some people think that the 22nd and 12th Amendments prevent a two-term president from being VP while others think that the 12th Amendment is qualifications for service and the 22nd for election which would allows a two term president to serve as VP.

That makes sense. "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President." If I were trying to enact a backdoor 3rd term, I'd argue that the ex-president is not "constitutionally ineligible" to be president, he's ineligible to be ELECTED president. If I were trying to stop your plan to make Obama Speaker of the House, I'd say that he would be "ineligible" to ever BE vice president, therefore can never step into a position to take over as president. The 12th Amendment isn't a condition on election, it's a condition of being eligible to serve as VP. I'd say that if the VP died, and Obama was Speaker, you'd have to go to the 4th in line.

[Evan1000]

At least Dippy isn't obsessed with the Simpsons or pictures of cats sleeping together and making out like you and your best (boy)friend Evan. And where will joining the Army get you, your grave or your wheelchair and crutches? And also where does getting married at 16 get you, I mean you aren't mature enough really so my point is if you're not mature enough to actually do something useful in your life without getting criticized by everyone or it benefits yourself, don't do it.

That was cute. I'm allowed to have an opinion, and I feel someone's maturity level is shown better with how they respond to something being said to them opposed to what they said in the first place. But absolutely nothing was said to you, and your response came out of nowhere. The cat comment certainly showed your maturity level.

Maturity should come with age, but age has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone has done something useful with their life. Getting married at 16 is retarded, but doesn't mean they're not mature/haven't done anything useful with their life.

And your military comment shows how much you know.. and you were complaining about me

[Ant venom]

That was cute. I'm allowed to have an opinion, and I feel someone's maturity level is shown better with how they respond to something being said to them opposed to what they said in the first place. But absolutely nothing was said to you, and your response came out of nowhere. The cat comment certainly showed your maturity level.

Maturity should come with age, but age has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone has done something useful with their life. Getting married at 16 is retarded, but doesn't mean they're not mature/haven't done anything useful with their life.

And your military comment shows how much you know.. and you were complaining about me
If you marry at 16 you aren't likely going to have a proper education (unless you're a genius) or finish your education so you would likely get sh*t on, and end up working for some sh*t job like the Army (if that's even considered a job) then you would be forgotten after fighting in Wars and whatnot, and essentially become homeless as no one gives a sh*t about military veterans unless there are rich ppl willing to give homes (because it isn't Ancient Rome where you get to enjoy your life after War and retiring from the Military or in their case, legion).

[Dipstik]

I don't require someone to be 18 to discuss politics with them, but I do expect them to actually have some life experience and some form of interaction with the government before they start preaching at me like Jonathan Liebowitz. I think someone who's married at 16 and supporting a kid or in the military would probably be someone worth talking to.

[Red BD]

All I want to know, and all I need to know is:
When's the GOSH-DARN
WHO FOR NEW MOD Debate is taking place?????????????????????

I bought this really neat red,white and blue 3 piece suit and all.....................

[Evan1000]

If you get married at 16.. you ain't working for the military. You can't afford to be away for months at a time away from your family.

Also, the military is a great job. What are you talking about? Great pay, medical benefits for life, and there's so many jobs you can get into after the military as well as in the military. They also pay for your college. They can even pay you to go to college so you don't have to take a small job and lose focus on studying.

[Ant venom]

If you get married at 16.. you ain't working for the military. You can't afford to be away for months at a time away from your family.

Also, the military is a great job. What are you talking about? Great pay, medical benefits for life, and there's so many jobs you can get into after the military as well as in the military. They also pay for your college. They can even pay you to go to college so you don't have to take a small job and lose focus on studying.
Great pay in the military, not so much. Getting paid about $3.7k-$4.5k a month ($54k at most a year) at most is not a job I want especially if I finish my education and get a masters or PhD where if I find a proper job I could get around $10k a month ($120k) a year). Point is you get a job for the pay, the money not because you can't get a proper education.

[I Love Money]

All I want to know, and all I need to know is:
When's the GOSH-DARN
WHO FOR NEW MOD Debate is taking place?????????????????????

I bought this really neat red,white and blue 3 piece suit and all.....................

Once I get a list of people who are in the running. Too bad Sirius has gone AWOL.

[Red BD]

I wouldn't count on Sirius coughing up the list of "30 or so" applicants to us. Besides, some who may or may not know my daring, some say dashing, campaign style will shirk from the debate. Vile Lynn and I and probably TheJess and Evan, and I am sure Capt Torque are ready to go at it tooth and nail right now!!!
State a deadline and make the candidates opt in or out! Then toss the questions to the group. No need to be fair! When has that ever happened?
Fact is, I Love Money, GREE will end up selecting the moderator despite what anyone says... Sorta like the Parliamentary politicos in the UK END UP SELECTING THE PM.
Democracy? Whatacrockery in Limeyland!

[I Love Money]

I'll start a thread asking who's running.

[Dipstik]

Still not my #2, but trump just moved into my "I'll give him a serious consideration" list today.

[Ant venom]

Still not my #2, but trump just moved into my "I'll give him a serious consideration" list today.

Trump for the win

[Vile Lynn]

Still not my #2, but trump just moved into my "I'll give him a serious consideration" list today.

Why? Because he finally agreed not to run if not selected as the Republican nominee?

[Dipstik]

Yep. I still don't think he actually has principles or believes anything he's saying. I think he probably has no respect for the Constitution, and would be as bad as Obama is when it comes to outright defying the law if it suits his own policy preferences, but at least I no longer think he's deep down a hillary clinton supporter just running to screw things up and get his name in the papers.

I still don't like him, but at least now I consider him a real candidate.

[Vile Lynn]

Cha, I think Trump only signed it because he's confident he'll win the nomination.

I don't think he realizes how difficult it will be to implement any of his plans. It all sounds good 'n' promising, but like Obama, respecting the Constitution limits their agenda.

Within mins of being elected, the entire world dumps all of their problems on the president's lap and there is nothing he can do about it. Trump might be loaded with money, but he doesn't have enough to fix anything.

[Dipstik]

Well I do think he was originally genuinely concerned that he would be excluded by the party. He says he's now realized that that's not going to be the case. Of course he's feeling confident right now (he still won't win), but as long as he has a fair shot, he's willing to publicly renounce his implicit threat to play spoiler for Hillary. As long as he wouldn't do that, I didn't even trust him enough to listen to him fairly.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it seems he really doesn't want Hillary to win, and he genuinely thinks he'd do a better job than anyone else. Let's assume he intends to follow through on his campaign promises even if he (very recently) used to say the opposite. Let's say Congress doesn't pass his agenda. Do you think he would consider that an end to it or do you think he'd do what Obama does and goes ahead with it anyway until someone (physically? Seriously... what would it take?) stops him? I think Trump would see himself as a king and the Constitution as an obsolete piece of paper.

[Evan1000]

What would it matter if he ran as a republican or democrat? He'd still be the same exact guy, with the same exact beliefs and the party that backs him up has absolutely no influence on how he would run the country if elected.

Oh wait, it doesn't work that way. Sorry.

And don't mind me. I know absolutely nothing about the campaign or what Donald trump stands for in anything, I'm just stating how I personally think the government should work.

[Dipstik]

And we all think that's very cute.

[Evan1000]

You say it like it's impossible. George Washington warned about political parties. They're the reason stuff doesn't get done in a country

[Dipstik]

Who says stuff needs to get done? "Don't just do something, stand there!"

[Vile Lynn]

What would it matter if he ran as a republican or democrat? He'd still be the same exact guy, with the same exact beliefs and the party that backs him up has absolutely no influence on how he would run the country if elected.

Oh wait, it doesn't work that way. Sorry.

And don't mind me. I know absolutely nothing about the campaign or what Donald trump stands for in anything, I'm just stating how I personally think the government should work.

Maybe I misunderstood your quote above, but it wasn't about Trump running as a Dem or Rep...

It was about Trump not opposing the Rep party as an Independent if he wasn't the Rep nominee, which would divide the GOP and allow the Dem party to possibly win the election.

[Max Power]

AKA Ross Perot.

[sister morphine]

I wouldn't count on Sirius coughing up the list of "30 or so" applicants to us. Besides, some who may or may not know my daring, some say dashing, campaign style will shirk from the debate. Vile Lynn and I and probably TheJess and Evan, and I am sure Capt Torque are ready to go at it tooth and nail right now!!!
State a deadline and make the candidates opt in or out! Then toss the questions to the group. No need to be fair! When has that ever happened?
Fact is, I Love Money, GREE will end up selecting the moderator despite what anyone says... Sorta like the Parliamentary politicos in the UK END UP SELECTING THE PM.
Democracy? Whatacrockery in Limeyland!
I love it when Americans think they understand British politics. ;)

Here, the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House Of Commons. The method by which they become leader of their parties varies by party, but suffice to say that all members of the party (not just MPs) get a vote. As an aside, the party leader still has to stand in their constituency, so it's not beyond possibility that they would be rejected by the electorate even if their party won the election.

[Dipstik]

I love it when Americans think they understand British politics. ;)

Here, the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House Of Commons. The method by which they become leader of their parties varies by party, but suffice to say that all members of the party (not just MPs) get a vote. As an aside, the party leader still has to stand in their constituency, so it's not beyond possibility that they would be rejected by the electorate even if their party won the election.

I hope they wipe their feet.

[Vile Lynn]

I love it when Americans think they understand British politics. ;).

It's even funnier when Americans think they understand American politics.

(not saying I know anything, haha)